campaignsfandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Political Reality
I have to agree with Jabowery, it's all about votes for politicians and it's all about getting out the vote--getting organized. I'm about political organization, and I don't mince words. For those who want to write position papers, that cool. I'm not into that. So if there is no room here for political organization , then I am wasting my time. Don't like to do that either.MakharramKhan 18:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC) As someone who has participated in political campaigns, lead a grassroots lobbying group and was credited, by the Congressional sponsor in testimony, for getting a reform law put on the books, I have a couple of comments about this Wiki: All politicians share a bottom line: votes. Some may value hookers, drugs, their ethinc group or Christ more than votes, but that they don't have in common. They worship votes or they aren't in office. They _don't_ worship ideas. I don't see how this Wiki is going to affect how politicians are going to behave if the politicians don't think it is going to affect the votes they receive, and I don't see how this Wiki is going to affect the votes politicians receive. --Jabowery 19:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :I agree with you that in the short term, ideas are not what affect politicians. There has been, in the short run, an unfortunate tendency for people to think that the point of this site is to debate political issues. It is not. I really have very little interest in this site being turned into yet another political debate forum. The point of this site, ultimately, is to encourage campaigns to engage the electorate directly through wikis (and blogs, but we are a wiki, so we can focus mostly on that I think) as a place to interact, motivate, shape message, etc. :If all this was meant to be, was a site for people to debate politics, then I agree... it would be more or less useless. If it is a site to serve as a starting point to demand more open and participatory campaigns, then it can succeed.--Jimbo Wales 02:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC) :You, sir, are wrong. In the long run, ideas win votes. May I suggest "Moral Politics" and (more recently published) "Whose Freedom?" by George Lakoff on how people vote based on ideas and morals. Calling for an honest discussion in this arena is considered very "liberal", however, as currently, the political right benefits much better from spin and public ignorance. --AndreyF 02:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC) ::It is pretty unclear to me who really benefits from public ignorance. I see plenty of exploitation of it on all sides. Not only does neither side have a monopoly on intelligence, in my view, broadcast media do not allow either side the luxury of caring about intelligence. This is what the internet can change. Broadcast media brings us broadcast politics. Participatory media can bring us participatory politics.--Jimbo Wales 02:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC) :::Now that I think about it, that's probably true. I stand corrected. --AndreyF 03:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC) :Well, we can't very well have a "votes wiki". I don't see the purpose so much as influencing the platforms of existing politicians, but rather to help voters understand the issues and where certain candidates stand on those issues. If this discourse results in politicians changing their views, or in someone with a more agreeable platform running for office who might not have otherwise, that's a bonus. --Whosawhatsis 02:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC) This kind of attitude is exactly why our political system is where it is. The fact that you have been involved in politics doesn't add any weight to your opinion. Quite frankly it just means you are part of the problem...as you proved in the rest of your post. You did a good job at pointing out an obvious fact "All politicians share a bottom line: votes." Thanks for the news flash. I think most of us understand that. So what is your suggestion beyond that statement of fact? Give up? Go home? This wiki is just a blank slate. We can make it into anything we want. If you want to be part of positive change then make a positive contribution. If you want to continue as you are please go tear down fledgling ideas somewhere else. :I might not tear down the fledgling idea if I could see what the idea was. What is the fledgling idea that I'm supposedly tearing down? I'm simply saying whatever the fledgling idea grows up to be it had better be seen by politicians as influencing votes and that I don't see how that is going to happen. --Jabowery 00:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC) :I think it is fine to say that politicians only care about votes. True enough, isn't it. And if we forget that basic fact, then our dreams of making a positive influence on politics are bound to be frustrated. The key link in the puzzle that I think we can provide is to make it possible for politicians to both care about votes, and care about seriously engaging the electorate in a participatory process, rather than simply doing the cheap easy scare tactic advertisements of mass media. --Jimbo Wales 02:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC) : Pollies only care about votes, with a few exceptions, and probably it was ever thus. It's the people who vote for them who care about ideas. Ergo, change the ideas people vote for and the pollies will follow along sooner or later. My proof? One example should do it. Watch how various political parties adopt 'green' policies when people vote for 'green' politicans. So how are the voters' ideas changed? Give them the means to participate in the process of setting and discussing the agenda. S'truth are we taking about democracy here? Matamir 06:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC) :I think the whole point is we can create a new political reality, as Jim is alluding to one that involves participation. For example, we the people can define the platform, and we can choose to vote for the platform we design. The politician that commits to that platform would get our votes. This eliminates party power, we no longer vote for a party or conservative or liberal, we vote for a well defined platform. The second aspect to the new political reality is that we can tell our representatives exactly how we want them to vote. It occurred to me last year that my representative had never asked me how I wanted him to vote. How can they represent us if they don't know what we are thinking? How can they execute our collective will if they do not know what it is? Well we can tell them now thanks to technology. Every representative will have a database of issues, or we will make one for them. The constituents can then go in, login and state what their choice in the matter is after a little debate and diversity of perspective. The individual choices are tabulated creating a collective choice. The representative then simply follows our will. If he did not then it would be obvious he went against the will of the people. In which case we all login click a button and remove him. Seven days later we click another button to choose another representative. Our government system is archaic it was designed at a time when people rode horse back and there were no phones so you picked a representative to go far away and travel days to do so. Now with technology we don’t need that representative in the same capacity, we can each represent ourselves now. They need to work more defining the solution options bases on the issues we raise and then we vote on them. We should and can give ourselves line item veto power, technology stipulates that we no longer need to have “pork”. We collectively trim off the fat. RichardThomas 13:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC) :My personal "pie in the sky" dream is that the internet, and sites such as this, will allow us to return to a sort of direct democracy as it was long ago in Athens. While this may never happen, what Campaign Wikia can do is bring about knowledge and a unbiased resource for political happenings, one that you simply cannot find in mass media today. It is the information age, there is no reason to continue living in the dark about what the government is doing. --Bobcobb 18:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC) :The problem with this idea of resurgence of direct democracy, at least in the US, is the pandemic laziness and apathy that results in abysmally low voter turnouts for presidential elections every fourth year and even lower ones for more frequent polling. Can you imagine how few votes would be cast if it was a day-to-day occurrence? It's not really a consensus of the people if only the opinions of a small minority are considered, even if they are the minority who understand and care enough about the issue to vote on it. :''Then again, in order to function, a democracy requires that voters have a sufficient level of understanding of the political process and the issues being voted upon to form their own opinions, lest all votes be decided based on things like which side had the most attractive spokesperson, while votes that are well-informed and born of strong conviction are mitigated to a minority. This wiki will undoubtedly help with this latter problem somewhat, but most of the voters are not well-informed enough to find it, nor do they have the interest to read it. :''Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to polish my cynic badge. --Whosawhatsis 21:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC) Unfortunately, such an idea would require a revolution on the societal scale. Our image and wealth based society would have to change drastically, and I don't see that happening any time soon. Perhaps after we fix the representative government we can begin to fix society. It's impossible at this point, but still an enjoyable thought. --Bobcobb 21:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC) Voters of a "sufficient level of understanding" are the electorate. All of us participating in this campaign wiki are involving ourselves in direct democracy. --24.215.85.129 09:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)